|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
How are u posted:I don't like wearing a mask everywhere, and just because I'm more than glad to comply with the rules for my health and the health of others doesn't mean I want to wear a mask forever. I felt great at the beginning of the summer when we could take them off because the vaccines truly did provide for all intents and purposes immunity from the old virus. That was awesome, it felt wonderful. You still trust the public health authorities when they say you don't have to do some COVID safety measure? You should at the very least pay attention to the numbers and squint test the justifications given. The authorities are not above given advice that straight up goes against the science and they've proven it multiple times. Phigs fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Sep 14, 2021 |
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
If someone is boosted and wears an EHMR their exhaust is not going to be a major vector for disease spread. If we're at the point of worrying about that sort of person spreading COVID we sure as gently caress should not be letting people out of their homes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
SubG posted:That's your prerogative, but I think source control is good, even when it's protecting people I disagree with. Did you N95s during flu season before COVID? Cause the breath of a vaccinated person who wears a respirator whenever they go outside their home has to be less of a risk to other people than the average person during flu season. Probably even outside of flu season. A half-mask respirator is source control through not becoming a source. They're cheaper, more comfortable (may vary person to person), better for the environment (probably), and provide more protection for the wearer. In the scenario you quoted I'd say the higher protection is more relevant than 1 person having their breath filtered. In that kind of environment it's like pissing in the ocean; might as well maximally protect yourself cause you aren't affecting the environment. That N95s filter your breath more is a benefit, but acting like that makes it strictly superior and implying that the half-mask is an immoral choice is wrong IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
"I agree for certain populations" is code for "boosters work and if you want to have the highest vaccine protection you get boosters". They're waffling over whether it should be public health policy for people to get them. Whether they're effective from a societal point. For the individual there is no waffling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah you can be on oxygen with a ❝ 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒹 ❞ case, but I don’t see outpatient ventilation happening. If you need oxygen you go to the hospital. Never mind what's possible, when you need oxygen you're going to be in a "holy gently caress I'm going to die get me to the hospital" frame of mind. Professor Beetus posted:Can you take it down a notch? Mild to moderate covid does not describe people who end up on ventilators. There's plenty of other reasons to not be callous about the possibility of getting covid but this is a bit much. "up to" excludes by default, hence why we say "up to and including". Easy mistake to make tho.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
As a non-American I've never had much faith in American institutions so I don't even know why a person would trust the FDA implicitly 10 years ago, but how a person can sit there and say "well the FDA said..." today I just don't understand. Refusing to recommend boosters smacks of technocratic bullshit to me. I legit don't see why you don't at least allow doctors to prescribe them. The two biggest data points we have on boosters is that the shots have very low rates of significant adverse effects and 60+ patients see a reduction in infection rate and severity. Which was enough to recommend it for 60+ and high risk groups... but not enough to cover our bases on the other groups? I can see not wanting to extrapolate in general, but a loving pandemic that's killing thousands every day sure seems like a time where you don't "well actually" the approval process. I could see not wanting to roll out a booster program without more info, but to not even allow it for prescription is some real bullshit. Think about all the poo poo that's optional during this pandemic that really loving should be mandatory but no we have to give people the choice. Don't wanna wear a mask in spite of how effective they are vs the cost? Sure, depending on where you go. Don't wanna get vaccinated ion spite of overwhelming evidence that they save lives? Sure, depending where you work. Wanna get boosters in spite of the lack of data? Nah, gently caress off if you're not 60+, wouldn't want you making a choice that could be sub-optimal. This entire train wreck of a response to the pandemic has been regulators dragging their feet and always, loving always erring on the side of less intervention. No need to wear masks anymore cause of the vaccine! Instead of maybe we wait until we have data backing up the idea that we won't wear masks? Nope, full steam ahead. Open up the schools. Work from home is over. Pack the restaurants. Pack the stadiums. Open up travel. Oh but don't recommend n95s and don't allow boosters. That would be reckless! We don't have the data! People could be risking their health! loving incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
How are u posted:It doesn't seem technocratic to me, could you maybe expand on why you think that? What I mean is this: HelloSailorSign posted:It's about ensuring we maintain appropriate regulatory facilities and protocols Basically it smacks to me of a decision that values the above more than it values the health and safety of the population. EDIT: Herstory Begins Now posted:My personal feeling is that exporting more doses is vastly more important and more of a moral plus than making already safe people marginally safer. Especially since the amount of vaccine waste domestically is pretty high compared to the percent of shots you can get into arms in countries with low vaccination rates. I'm going to consider this a distraction tactic until we see actual, real plans to export doses AND evidence that boosters will impact those plans. Phigs fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Phigs, you straight up do not know anything about the "technocratic bullshit" you are attacking. Just for one example, the FDA lost the ability to directly regulate prescription decisions due to a suit from WLF a long time ago (iirc the first case in the most recent run was 1997), and their ability to regulate related marketing activity has been under continuous attack ever since. It's the basis of the currently widespread practice of offlabeling and probably has an 8-digit deathtoll. If they can't do that minimum I suggested then they should do whatever they can to ensure a person who wants a booster can get one. The FDA deciding if people people do or don't get boosters is technocratic by definition. It's a technocratic institution, which is not at all in itself a problem, often a good thing actually. I disagree with the decision given the pandemic and the evidence of minimal adverse affects. I think it's technocratic bullshit because they should relinquish their hold given the circumstances and I think they are not because they want to preserve the process and their position as technocratic gatekeepers more than they want to help people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You appear to also not know what "technocratic" means, since you're using it to describe, simultaneously, "anything regulatory" and "anything I personally disagree with". Phigs posted:It's a technocratic institution, which is not at all in itself a problem, often a good thing actually. Hmm. And FDA is a technocratic regulatory body because its staffed based on expertise. It's the very definition. EDIT: Experts making decisions on what the public is allowed is technocratic. It just is. I added the word bullshit specifically because it was a move I disagreed with, so the FDA was maintaining technocracy at a time when I thought it should not. They should have said something along the lines of we don't have the data to render an expert opinion on whether people should get boosters, but given the pandemic and the low adverse outcomes we will allow the population to make their own choice. Phigs fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:you're saying they should skip the literally agency defining safety standards and evaluations... in order to keep people safe? In this case, to the extent they would need to in order to give approval, yes. You're free to disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
It's an additional shot of an already approved vaccine that they have plenty of data for on the first and second shots, and even have some third shot data from Israel. There's even people with 4 shots running around, but those numbers are small and not being tracked cause they snuck those doses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 07:32
|
|
|
If they advise yes for boosters for anyone that is younger than 60 then they are admitting that there is enough evidence to suggest to them that it would be beneficial for <60s to get the booster. They would not advise it if they felt there was no benefit. Can anyone disagree with this assessment? Given that, the only reason to advise against <60s in general getting the vaccine for health reasons would be the risks involved. Because surely a beneficial treatment with no side effects should always gain approval. But the data we've seen suggest the booster shot has similar adverse affects as the other doses (here's one source for you), and those are pretty small. So, I'm not seeing a compelling case to vote against for health reasons. So why did they vote no? Especially since it's advisory. If there's some logistical problem then that is the problem of the government, no? An FDA advisory committee should be focused on the medical issues, to provide that part of the equation to government. Then if the government decides nah gently caress the advice it would take shots away from the rest of the world (lol) then they can just do that themselves. It's not an issue for the committee I would think. Phigs fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
In my country I'll gladly call you a moron if you're anti-vaxx. But isn't it entirely possible in the US for a person to only be exposed to far right news? If so, are you really a moron for distrusting a vaccine if every news source you have is telling you that it's bad? On your commute you hear on the radio about how the liberals are trying to kill you with vaccines, your coworkers agree, then you turn on the news when you get home and they're telling you the same poo poo. And then your facebook is full of friends and family afraid of the vaccine. Etc. Don't get me wrong there are morons out there not getting the jab even though they have all the info they need. But it looks like you've got a significant population that are just so deep in the propaganda hole they have no chance. It feels like being mad at a North Korean for thinking Kim Jong-Un is a the greatest man alive. America has failed those people hard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Wasn’t the correlation of lower suicides related to relief checks sent out by the government, rent/mortgage moratoriums, etc? Yep, I've said it before recently but my suicidal thoughts went away when I was effectively shielded from much of capitalism by going on the disability pension. Capitalism straight up mind-fucks people, especially the more vulnerable people in society. I'd also like to point out I started feeling really anxious about COVID a couple weeks ago to the point that it affected my ability to function, and then I started doom posting and reading CSPAM more and I'm feeling really good now. Human beings can adjust to situations; it's the not knowing what's really happening, and ignorant hope, and seeing people all glib about a loving pandemic that was really mentally harmful. I feel like now I'm walking into the future equipped to handle what comes next and if it turns out to be less bad then that will be awesome, but I feel I can handle when it goes bad the way I think it will. And seeing other people post doom is comforting, it's nice knowing that other people actually loving care enough about the masses getting sick and dying every day to at the very least post about how it sucks. And you feel like other people are in this poo poo with you. Without CSPAM I felt I was facing this whole pandemic alone and isolated, watching my fellow human beings suffer and die and nobody giving a poo poo because anybody who did wouldn't be so bloody calm about it all the time. Some acknowledgement of the seriousness of what we're facing does wonders to help cope. So I think people calling for no doom posting are mistaken. Shielding people from gloomy predictions isn't helping them. It does not feel good to have your expectations shattered over and over again because you constantly underestimate the outcomes because you lack information. It does not feel good to have to shield yourself from every bad potential outcome because your ability to cope is built on blind optimism. It is not better to leave anxious people to have to imagine the worst outcomes themselves with their own imaginations. Providing a realistic scenario a person can anchor themselves around knowing it's not just an optimistic projection is much better than avoiding seeing anything "pessimistic". Avoidance is always a terrible coping strategy that hurts you more in the end. I'm not saying this thread should become a CSPAM copy, but I'd chill on getting mad when people post predictions of things going badly or get mad at the government. There's an opinion from someone who has actually been mentally affected by COVID and the talk around it, not just someone worried about potential people who might be.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 07:07
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:By far the weirdest thing about that thread is its fascination with full-on face respirators. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/29/cambridge-hospitals-mask-upgrade-appears-to-eliminate-covid-19-risk-to-staff And there was one where a hospital in the US used the half-face elastomeric respirator for their staff and had zero hospital-acquired infections too but I didn't save it. I don't think using effective PPE during a pandemic is weird. Your mask tolerance might be low enough or your risk tolerance high enough that you don't personally wear them, but a person who does is making themselves safer. During a pandemic that is killing people. And the thread doesn't say everyone should use them, it recommends n95s and kn95s and yes elastomeric as well as all being good options. It provides people the information on what will protect them and they get to choose what best suits them and nobody cares what it is they go with provided it's effective. Giving people poo poo for choosing to increase their personal protection during a pandemic is what's weird tbh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 07:47
|
|
|
Nah I didn't mean to imply they were using elastomeric respirators I was just covering multiple types of respirators because the post I was responding to wasn't specific on what kind of respirator they thought was weird. Probably talking about the half-mask stuff, but I wanted to show that hospitals were upgrading from surgical masks to respirators and reporting good results, so it makes sense for individuals to make the same kinds of move if they are wanting to improve their safety.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 10:07
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:That it's not peer reviewed means it should be taken with a grain of salt and it's not going to be used to shape official policy (by CDC or whoever). Why isn't the CDC using it as evidence to change their masking recommendations? Because it's a preprint, for one thing. We were talking about actual people on the street making decisions about their personal safety though and whether or not it was weird. The question was not "is this scientifically proven to be effective" it was "could a reasonable person come to the reasonable conclusion that the equipment is effective". A lot of people died "waiting for more research" this pandemic. And very, very rarely would (or should) a person wait on peer reviewed literature before they make decisions about their life. I don't know anyone who waited for a peer reviewed paper on their potential spouse before deciding to spend the rest of their life with them for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Is this in reference to enforcing lockdowns? I think it's just a reality of policing in North America that giving police broad powers to enforce lockdowns against individuals (which pretty much necessitates random stops of citizens and carding) is going to result in racialized people being disproportionately targeted, and those stops / carding used as an excuse for additional searches / harassment / brutalization. I know this because this is demonstrably what happened in North America when police had those powers, and normalizing them and making those powers more common will do nothing but amplify that effect. Could always try a non-police enforcement mechanism. Create a temporary organization that works with minority communities to create enforcement units who are tasked with ensuring compliance in their own communities. Part of the problem of police is that they are the monolithic enforcement arm of the state and capital, of course just adding a new job to the tool used to oppress the masses is just going to cause problems. Another problem is they tend to police outside of their communities like an occupying force instead of being a community tool. You could solve both problems with a unit that recruits from the community with community support. They wouldn't be able to FORCE people at gunpoint like police do, but you can get a lot done just by being seen as a legitimate authority and being able to leverage the community to pressure people within it. Plus you can pay them for their time, utilizing some of the lost labor force due to closures and injecting money into the community. You could add community-wide incentives so if lockdown is obeyed everyone within that area gets a bonus payment, but only if lockdown is maintained, etc. And that's just a random idea I had just now. There's plenty of room between SEND THE POLICE and ah gently caress it do whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2021 09:17
|
|
|
Don't really care tbh. The US is suffering from a lack of even trying solutions, not a surplus of naive solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2021 10:43
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:Can someone please post the latest on how Delta causes brain damage and how it’s statistically different from a major viral non-covid infection that affects other people. Seems like it’s still the boogieman gripping everyone in this thread but I’m just not buying it. Maybe it’s because I’ve already had Covid and have cognitive dissonance and don’t feel any different than before even though I am now statistically dumber. Oh well. If I get covid again will I be even dumber? This is relevant information for other things, but I don't think it matters at all to my personal risk assessment. If anything, knowing that brain damage is just part of the russian roulette of getting an infection would make me even more inclined to avoid exposure to other people's air. No flu no cold no covid. No sir. Not for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2021 05:37
|
|
|
Especially when the chance is repeated over and over again. It's one thing to roll the dice to open up the ability to go to restaurants and such. It's an entirely different proposition to roll the dice every single time you go to one. And in a long enough series you will roll every possible outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2021 08:17
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:What was the turning point here btw? I remember the big existential worry come from down under for a lot of it was the fact that they were locking down super well but couldn't get their hands on enough vaccine supply to lock it in so to speak Our federal government is incredibly terrible by Australian standards. Just complete loving incompetent morons and corrupt to boot. Our government decided to ignore Pfizer in favor of AZ largely because of connections aka corruption. But then there was the clot scare and we had to scramble to get the Pfizer shot. Or we should have, but the government dragged its feet. Literally failed to return Pfizer's phone calls. Eventually they pulled their finger out and got around to securing supplies of vaccine, largely on the back of the outbreaks and word coming out about how badly they had hosed it up until then. Since then they've been buying vaccines and trading vaccines with other countries to get our supply up quick.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Nobody is saying vaccines are worthless, they're saying they're grossly insufficient to stop infection and spread, especially after a few months without a booster. The prison example is perfect for showing the point that NPIs are necessary to control the spread of COVID and that vaccines alone are not the answer. It's the extreme end of the scale, we now know what happens when you hotbox a bunch of people with COVID, and it shows that vaccines in that scenario do very little to prevent infection. So presumably, and here we have to do something without heaps of peer reviewed data to guide the way, but presumably the further along the scale we get away from the COVID hotbox the better our results. I'm going to assume that the less you are exposed to COVID the more effective vaccines are in further reducing your chances of getting COVID because the protection they provide is less likely to be overcome by viral load. And I think that's a safe assumption, not because it's definitely right, but because if it's wrong then at least anything we did to act on that assumption wouldn't have made the pandemic worse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Vaccines are insanely efficient at preventing infection, actually, and the only study that claimed waning effectiveness in a matter of months suffered from Simpson's Paradox. Sufficient and efficient are not the same word. Something can be as wildly efficient as you like and still not be sufficient to stop spread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
Not sure where you would expect me to pull sources for an "assertion" I started with "I'm going to assume that". The rest obviously comes from the prison data posted up thread and are simply my own conclusions. People have already attacked the data and the validity of drawing conclusions from it so you needn't bother. If you have a different conclusion to offer then I'd be glad to hear it, but I don't need a lecture on the data science. I'm aware. I don't care. I continue to maintain the position that its better we people on the ground draw what conclusions we can with the data we have available, as it's available, during a pandemic where the authorities are showing their rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I mean, how did typing out this in particular not tip you off to the notion that you're going a bit fringe in your conclusions? No. You're choosing to draw anti-vaxx poo poo into it. I started with nobody is saying vaccines are worthless and ended with saying that NPIs help vaccines further reduce chances of infection. In what world is that anti-vaxx? And it's not fringe or at least it loving shouldn't be, to push the idea that we need NPIs in addition to vaccines in order to properly deal with the pandemic. Which if you read what I wrote with the spirit of trying to understand it, is actually the thesis of that post. And I stand by the statement that vaccinations are grossly insufficient to stop spread alone. Sufficiency to stop spread would require that they completely stop spread by themselves. In that, they are grossly insufficient. They help. But help and sufficient are leagues different. You need NPIs to stop the spread, which is why I was pointing out that the vaccines are not sufficient. And drawing conclusions from early data is not "misinformation". Who do you think is still reading this thread anyway? Who do you think is going to read that post of mine and think they're reading some authoritative information and thus be misinformed by it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Covid/delta just isn't bad enough to get a lot of people to sit up and take notice. It just isn't. For instance I can look at the numbers for the US, see 700,000 dead and think "gently caress!" I read all about Covid and scare myself, read more and try and get a grip on my fears etc etc for nearly two years now. I can imagine most people in here are the same. We read about ICU's full of unvaccinated people causing people without covid to die, we can see the cost. Not arguing with you here but I wanna point out that people can get upset about 1 white woman or girl going missing. All it takes is the media making them care. COVID is plenty bad enough for people to care, the media is just not showing them what is happening. It's not hyping it up the way they hype up other juicy stories. If it bleeds it leads and there's all kinds of blood out there than the media just does not care to show.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
Yea blasting 24/7 on CNN is what I was talking about. The media is not refusing to show it, but they're not doing the flood the airways thing they sometimes do for other tragedies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
That medication is in a weird spot really. It's definitely good if it turns out to halve hospitalizations but if it's too expensive to just keep in the cabinet then people are having to go out and get the medication when they are sick with COVID when ideally you want them and their household to stay home. I'd imagine it would be a net gain in terms of load on the medical system, but it would probably increase people leaving isolation to visit clinics or ERs to get the medication.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Exactly, I'm in Melbourne and the Powers That Be, have been desperately begging everyone to please not have people over to your house, avoid having your bi-weekly indoor spitathons and please god stop breaking the rules. They run (badly timed) commercials about drowning in your own lungs in the ICU. I guess this is just another example of the 1% using their classic reverse psychology tricks on us poor sheep. It's not the 99% of people breaking those laws though is it, it's a minority of people loving over the plan. We know this because if everyone was loving up the plan the growth would have been even higher. That you can get a spike from illegal footy parties that collectively would probably add up to regular 2019 activity shows that the majority of people are following the rules on regular days. If I piss in the pool it doesn't mean the "don't piss in the pool" rule is unpopular, that everyone else in the pool wants to swim in piss and would welcome a rescinding of the rule.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:That's why I said a significant proportion of them. Significant enough to gently caress up the effort to suppress Covid. I am not anti-lockdown. I am not a let 'er rip cheerleader. That's fair, thanks for the clarification. On a related note though not directed at you personally, I think that we should be looking at lockdown failures in terms of how can we increase compliance or decrease spread in ways that don't rely on compliance instead of giving up on the goal. Plenty of perfectly good systems we use today fail initially and are reworked until they don't. This reaction to give up when lockdowns don't work in their initial configuration would be really terrible if applied to almost any activity and I think an example of how anti-lockdown pressures are perverting the process.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
freebooter posted:You can certainly make it safer but you can't make it safe enough for a lockdown to drive Delta down to elimination. This isn't hypothetical, it's what's playing out right now in real world jurisdictions to the point where those jurisdictions have officially abandoned their COVID-zero policies. The sample size of countries that genuinely tried COVID lockdown is very small. And they all did fairly similar things and there was very little experimentation. Don't forget a lot of countries had given up or not even tried before Delta even hit. Literally the only country to try China's strategy was China, and it worked. There's probably different strategies that could have/could still work if tried but nobody did them, they all did the same thing that failed everywhere else and basically flipped a coin every few days with "change nothing" and "give up" faces until the coin landed "give up" face-up. I'm curious to see what NZ is actually going to do if they're still claiming they're pursuing a COVID zero strategy. Maybe they've decided they need a slightly different approach. Maybe they're just deluding themselves that giving up is not giving up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
Smeef posted:I think that we've gone a little overboard on entry quarantine requirements and 'ambush' quarantines (I don't like the term, but I'll use it for lack of a better one). 21 days and 8 PCRs for fully vaccinated arrivals seems excessive and more about discouraging travel than preventing cases. If that's the goal, then fine, but that should be the stated goal instead of claiming that cases are slipping through multiple PCRs and 14 days of quarantine when that has never been documented to have happened. The ambush quarantines are brutal, too. A single case in a building means the entire building gets shipped off. Buildings here are loving enormous and can house many hundreds if not thousands of people. Quarantine camps are abominable and have caused outbreaks and other health issues. I think these approaches are excessive because I've seen no evidence that previously lighter policies led to cases. As mentioned, the outbreaks were due to loopholes that would not have been closed by longer days and were solved without 'ambush' quarantines. Despite what you say here I like the sound of these ambush quarantines for Australia not gonna lie. Make sure we build nice enough facilities, ensure jobs, cover wages, support or quarantine dependents based on exposure, and hell maybe even add in a payment to encourage compliance. You can say it's excessive but I'm looking at HK and mainland China using ambush lockdowns unlike us and they're winning the battle unlike us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
I remember SARS as something other countries had to deal with. We (Australia) had a screening program for entry but it was relatively unobtrusive and nobody with SARS ever entered the country.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Case numbers in New South Wales are falling and it's generally considered to be because they got a majority of the population with at least one jab. The same situation will eventuate with Melbourne and Auckland. The point is that R<1 should be an additional requirement to easing restrictions. Because if you're above 1 then you're already failing and opening up is only going to make it worse. So NSW can ease restriction under that logic but Vic should wait. Because maybe in Vic getting to 70% slows them down, but maybe it doesn't for whatever reason and they need a higher target. If we're targeting the vaccine % because that will contain cases, then we're aiming at a proxy for the thing we actually want to target; we should be aiming at cases being contained by the vaccinations directly. If Vic hits 70% and the cases keep going up then 70% is not working and they shouldn't ease restrictions unless they just want to give up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 06:05
|
|
|
freebooter posted:But the point of vaccination is also to decouple case rates from hospitalisations and deaths. Even if you get to a hypothetical 100% vaccination rate the virus is still going to spread because they're not sterilising vaccines, and so (presuming people still got tested) you would still see case numbers skyrocket as we opened up. That wouldn't mean opening up is a bad idea, since the virus is never going away and the purpose of restrictions going forward should be to protect the healthcare system, not keep cases down when those cases are no longer lethally scything through the populace. Yeah this is the giving up I mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
enki42 posted:If cases are legitimately decoupled from hospitalization and deaths (I'd add long term consequences as well), how is that giving up? The problem with the decoupling argument is that too many places have been too eager to declare that it's happening before the data is actually showing it's occurring to a significant enough degree, but if it was achieved, why care about cases? Well the difference for me is NSW can say it has some handle on cases so lets open up a bit. Opening up when you're making record cases and still going up feels like giving up. If you're going to do a staged unwinding of lockdown each stage should require stabilization so you actually know where you stand. If you just constantly burn through stages because of arbitrary timelines or vaccine % then you have no idea which stage did what. There's no control, there's no analysis, it's just giving up the idea of containment and hoping the poo poo doesn't hit the fan too hard. If you want to give up covid-zero that doesn't mean you should give up the idea of covid-[acceptable number], and how can you target a number unless you gradually ease up until you hit it? EDIT: And by "target a number" I mean whatever number allows our hospital system to still function, since that appears to be the acceptable line. And it's hard to know what that number is until we approach it. And shooting past it accidentally is a terrible outcome. Phigs fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
There's hope for other countries but at this time I don't see America ever getting out from under COVID. Just locked into a couple hundred thousand+ deaths a year plus hospitalizations and long-term complications from now on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
Worth remembering that the US booster schedule of getting one 6 months after the 2nd jab got released around 8 months after the first round of people received their 2nd jab.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
How are u posted:Why is this worth remembering? What is it that you are interpreting from this timeline of events? People who got vaccinated in the first waves and then waited for booster approval spent a period of time where current protocols now suggest they should have been boosted. From that I think it's fair to say that it's likely some people died who wouldn't have if they got boosted at the 6 month mark. Whether that means people should have gone out and gotten a 3rd shot without official guidance is going to be subjective, but I don't see how anyone can say it's objectively wrong to act outside of official guidelines given the above.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2021 17:46
|
|